What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[Faith]

You have the responsibility to do your own research.
Go listen to David Bercot’s teaching and prove him wrong.
Bye.
Let us know what you find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ll be back.

 

[NathanH83]

Hebrews 11:35 is a primary source. The author of Hebrews referenced 2 Maccabees 7 as scripture. Anyone who has read 2 Maccabees 7 should be able to see this as clear as say. That’s a primary source. So stop it with “You have no primary sources.”
Uh, the BIBLE is a primary source!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Show me a PRIMARY source that there was a BC canon list!

Oh, wait, there isn’t one.

Hmmmm…looks like Origen and Josiah have no primary sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their answer should go something like

"I never made that claim, you are the one making claims with no evidence, stop changing the subject, waaaaa"

 

[Faith]

Show me a PRIMARY source that there was a BC canon list!

Oh, wait, there isn’t one.

Hmmmm…looks like Origen and Josiah have no primary sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See?

 

[NathanH83]

You’ll be back.

I think you misunderstood me.
I was saying “BYE” in the sense get Origen needs to leave and go do his research.
I wasn’t saying I was leaving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

The entire volume of ante-nicene fathers doesn’t count?

Why yes it does. Now all you have do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

Who died and put you in charge?

lol

The early church fathers is HUGE evidence.

It would be IF YOU COULD cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

And again, how is Daniel 8 not a primary source?

That is not what we were discussing. You are trying to change the topic. You are trying to divert attention away from the fact you have zero objective evidence.

So cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

I suggest you listen to what David Bercot says.

Clearly it is you who needs to listen to Bercot since you cannot provide cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. You must not have been paying attention.

 

[Origen]

Show me a PRIMARY source that there was a BC canon list!

I never said there was. In fact I never made any claims about what was or was not part of the canon. Not only is your point completely irrelevant but also misleading and a waste of time.

 

[NathanH83]

Their answer should go something like

"I never made that claim, you are the one making claims with no evidence, stop changing the subject, waaaaa"

Sounds about right.

Just say “I never made any claims” and back yourself out of any responsibility.
It’s always the other guy’s responsibility.
Origen needs to listen to David Bercot’s teaching.
WE HAVE listened to it.
HE HASN’T.

Who’s the one being lazy here?

I’d love to hear someone refute David Bercot’s claims. Who knows? Maybe David got something wrong?
It would be nice if some others would also join us in a search for truth and objectively try to find faults with David Bercot’s arguments.

But, I guess they’re either too scared or too lazy, or maybe too uninterested in the topic.
They’re clearly not too busy since they waste so much time on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I never said there was. In fact I never made any claims about what was or was not part of the canon. Not only is your point completely irrelevant but also misleading and a waste of time.

“I never made any claims”
“I never made any claims”
“I never made any claims”

Bye!
Go do your research now.
Get back to us after you’ve proven David Bercot wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

Their answer should go something like

"I never made that claim,

Correct and I didn't.

you are the one making claims with no evidence,

Also correct and you don't.

stop changing the subject

Again you are correct because you do just that. In fact that is just what you are doing with this post.

So now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

 

[Origen]

Get back to us after you’ve proven David Bercot wrong.

No point. I already know your claims are false.

 

[Origen]

Hebrews 11:35 is a primary source. The author of Hebrews referenced 2 Maccabees 7 as scripture. Anyone who has read 2 Maccabees 7 should be able to see this as clear as say. That’s a primary source. So stop it with “You have no primary sources.”
Uh, the BIBLE is a primary source!!

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU.

Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't.

 

[NathanH83]

Correct and I didn't.


Also correct and you don't.


Again you are correct because you do just that. In fact that is just what you are doing with this post.

So now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

Hebrews 11:35


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU.

Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't.

Because the Bible isn’t good enough for you?

I think we can pretty much count you a heretic if the Bible isn’t a good enough source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

Because the Bible isn’t good enough for you?

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU.

Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't

I think we can pretty much count you a heretic if the Bible isn’t a good enough source.

Even if I were you still CANNOT cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

I know it and so do you.

 

[Josiah]

Hmmmm…looks like Origen and Josiah have no primary sources.

We're not the ones claiming anything about the canon.... YOU ARE.

Correct, we have no formal/official/binding proclaimation of some Pan-Christian Ruling Body on what is and is not canonical Scripture - and we don't claim that we do! It's YOU claiming that Christianity proclaimed some mysterious (unnamed) books as fully canonical. And YOU who have nothing to substantiate that. YOU are saying "these books" (which you refuse to indentify) ARE and always have been declared as fully canonical by Christianity - you just have NOTHING to show that claim is true. You just keep repeating it - over and over and over, in thread after thread, for a year now - never substantiating that claim. And now exempting yourself from any need to;.

All you can do is mention 2-3 INDIVIDUALS who considered some books to be so (but ignore the same can be said for a lot of books you don't accept) and 2-3 obscure, local, regional Church Council meetings for a western diocese (while you don't accept church council meetings, you just insist everyone ELSE does, but ONLY on this singular point). And now you want us to exempt you from truth, from accountability, for any apologetic for your claims and just docilicly swallow it whole because you found some guy on the internet who makes the same claim. Friend, you can find someone claiming anything on the 'net, but you don't seem to realize, that doesn't make it true.... and if YOU claim it, then YOU have the responsibility, not someone else.




.

 

[Origen]

Hebrews 11:35

How does that support your previous claims you NOW wish would just go away?

Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't

 

[Josiah]

Hebrews 11:35 is a primary source. The author of Hebrews referenced 2 Maccabees 7 as scripture.

FALSE. Completely false, as anyone who can read knows!

Sorry, but those of us who have the ability to read KNOW that the author of Hebrews NEVER ONCE mentions the book of 2 Maccabees (or any other book, for that matter). Do a word search.... the words "Second Maccabees" appears NOWHERE in Scripture. If you can read, you know this.

Yes, it appears the author MAY be referring to an event..... AN EVENT! Not a book. The event is not identical to a book that mentions it. Some writing that mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 is NOT the same thing as the attack, a book is a book not an event (why does this simple, obvious reality SO allude you?). You can't even prove that book was the ONLY source of that information! You have NO CLUE how that unknown author knew of that event (if indeed, he did). And again, if a book mentions the attack on _Pearl Harbor.... and we know that attack happened.... that does NOT prove that ERGO Christianity must have officially, formally, definitively proclaimed that book to be inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture. THINK, my brother. THINK.

Uh, the BIBLE is a primary source!!

Your circular reasoning is AMAZING!




.

 

[NathanH83]

Trying to change the topic AGAIN! None of that can provide any sources for these claims made by YOU.

Now all you have to do is cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence. I know you can't


If I am you still CANNOT cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

I know it and so do you.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Like, give me an example.

I mean, we’ve got these church councils in the 4th century, three of them, declaring these books to be scripture.

Now, try to start using your brain. What would cause these church councils to believe that Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith, etc., are all scripture?
What would cause ALL THREE of these councils to believe that?

I mean, that right there would be enough for most people.

But then, on top of that, we’ve got men like Clement who probably knew Paul and Peter personally, and he quotes Judith and Wisdom of Solomon to be scripture.

On top of that, we’ve got the author of Hebrews in chapter 11 referencing 2 Maccabees, and the context implies that he’s talking about biblical history. Then chapter 13 of Hebrews references Tobit.

On top of that we’ve got John 10 referencing Hanukkah, the holiday that was established in Maccabees.

On top of that, we’ve got Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 prophesying about Maccabees.

On top of that, we’ve got every single ancient copy of the Septuagint containing most of these apocryphal books.

On top of that, we’ve got the early Latin translations including these books, which are used by the early church.

On top of that, we’ve got dozens and dozens if early church fathers quoting the apocryphal books as scripture, as evidenced by David Bercot’s teaching (which you refuse to listen to).

So, I’m honestly confused as to what you’re even asking for. You keep demanding that we provide evidence. WHAT evidence? What do you want?

What evidence are you asking for? Give me an example of what you’re looking for. There’s a boatload of evidence that the earliest Christians had these books in their Bibles and accepted them as scripture. There’s a boatload of Christians TODAY who STILL accept these books as scripture.

The fact that you’re still asking “show me the evidence” tells me that you’re purposefully blinding yourself from the truth.

It sounds to me like you’re saying that you cannot see the forrest because the trees are getting in the way.

If you can’t see the forest for the trees, then I really can’t help you. I honestly don’t know what you’re asking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

FALSE. Completely false, as anyone who can read knows!

Sorry, but those of us who have the ability to read KNOW that the author of Hebrews NEVER ONCE mentions the book of 2 Maccabees (or any other book, for that matter). Do a word search.... the words "Second Maccabees" appears NOWHERE in Scripture. If you can read, you know this.

Yes, it appears the author MAY be referring to an event..... AN EVENT! Not a book. The event is not identical to a book that mentions it. Some writing that mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 is NOT the same thing as the attack, a book is a book not an event (why does this simple, obvious reality SO allude you?). You can't even prove that book was the ONLY source of that information! You have NO CLUE how that unknown author knew of that event (if indeed, he did). And again, if a book mentions the attack on _Pearl Harbor.... and we know that attack happened.... that does NOT prove that ERGO Christianity must have officially, formally, definitively proclaimed that book to be inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture. THINK, my brother. THINK.






Your circular reasoning is AMAZING!




.

Circular reasoning?
Huh?

The book of Hebrews is not an apocryphal book. It’s a canonical book of the New Testament that YOU already accept.

I’m not using Apocryphal books to verify other apocryphal books. I’m using the New Testament to verify Apocryphal books. There’s nothing circular to that. What in the world are you talking about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk